Why nukes should be changed....

[Mad Bomber]

Sultan:

In 1945 The US Firebombed Tokyo destroying 66% of Tokyo, killing at least 150,000 people and making homeless most of the rest of the tokyo citizenry. Nukes are not the only thing underpowered, Airpower, Artilley, in fact ALL bombardments are under powered in CIV 3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined to kill apox 120,000 people so at least before thermonuclear weapons, Conventional weapons could be used as destructively as Nukes. With the advent of the H-BOMB this changed the situation dramatically, a modern NuKe with a 25MT warhead will completely wipe out a major city, the targeting of more than one nuke on a city is to insure "hardened" sites are desroyed as well. In short the Tactial NUke should have less effect than tthe ICBM as far as dstructive power is concerned.

 

[hbdragon88]

Whoa, whoa whoa - long replies are time-consuming to read.

If nukes are changed, they should be programmed better to deal with fallout effects. It's ridiculous to think that there's just one nuke that kill a whole lot of pop and that's it. No!

The nuclear fallout from Nagaski and Hiroshima in 1945 with the detonation was devestating. The nuclear testing the former USSR conducted near villages still affect them today. And cause weather travels all throughout the world, there could be something like civillians being killed much later.

I know Bamspeedy already mentioned something like that "a nuclear cloud" before but I think that a nuclear fallout effect would sound better.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
One thing that God3345 suggested that makes sense is that a nuclear strike ought not to destroy any nuclear weapons inside the city. This would make MADders happy as you would be able to nuke a foe who nuked you.

That is the current case, or at least with ICBM's. An ICBM will survive the nuclear strikes. It is only vulnerable if the attacking civ can also take that city on the same turn. Otherwise you do still have your MAD principle.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I agree with you on that, Mad Bomber: bombing is underpowered. It is infuriating to send ten bombers in and get one hit point off of a spearman and a marketplace for your effort.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Right now I find it hard to think that bombardment efficiency should go up alot - just knocked twelve pop points of Babylon in a single turn. That with sixteen Arty and two Bombers, so yes I was really 'lucky'.

Nuking a city should certainly wipe out all shields in the production box. Arguably, nuking a Capital should at least have a chance of destroying any completed SS parts.

BTW, why can't we decide in which city our SS will be assembled? Idea for new Small Wonder; Space Centre, required in order to launch a SS, but not to build SS parts. Completed SS parts will be remain in the city they're built in till you airlift 'em to the ciy with the Space Centre in, and can be destroyed if the city they're in is captured or nuked. The Space Centre could be called, say, Baikonur or Cape Canaveral, if 'Space Centre' sounds too bland.

 

[hbdragon88]

Cool idea for that "Space Centre" but something like Cape Canaveral would in my opinion be a too nation-orineted. You call it Magellan's Voyage to avoid calling it "Spain's voyage." If I'm right in thinking that the great lighthouse is Alexander's, that's why you call it the Great Lighthouse. Being name-y is something that they avoided.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, Forbidden Palace, Wall Street, and Pentagon are certainly as "name-y" you can ask for. The Great Lighthouse is the traditional name of the thing (which wasn't built by Alexander, BTW, but by one of the first Ptolemaeans, which's the dynasty Cleopatra belonged to), and Magellan's Voyage is so called because it was Magellan who undertook it.

 

[God3345]

the reason i thought that nukes should be a lot more powerful, is that if a city today were to get nuked, i dont think they would be building too many new banks and universities and such for a while, or have too many scientists working in the labs.
it would make nukes a lot stronger, but only short term. i think that if i had a huge stockpile of nukes and couterstrike every city my enemy owns, they should be seriously hurting for quite some time. like it is today, the nuke should be more of a serious deturrent than a minor nusance.
but the people at firaxis prolly wanted everyone to see thier nuke graphics so they made sure everyone would use them often

 

[hbdragon88]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Well, Forbidden Palace, Wall Street, and Pentagon are certainly as "name-y" you can ask for. The Great Lighthouse is the traditional name of the thing (which wasn't built by Alexander, BTW, but by one of the first Ptolemaeans, which's the dynasty Cleopatra belonged to), and Magellan's Voyage is so called because it was Magellan who undertook it.

Well, yes - I see. But the thing is that the Soviets actually started the whole space thing with Sputnik in 1958, so to give the Americans credit - vast space program - is in my opinion not so right. Of couse they soon pushed to become the forefront of space expedition but to name it that would be skipping over Soviet's credit.